CHINETTI GARTHWAITE IMPORTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MARK SADKIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Chinetti Garthwaite Imports, a Delaware corporation and authorized Ferrari distributor, appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss in a warranty breach action brought by a Ferrari purchaser. The court affirmed the denial, finding that Chinetti had sufficient contacts with Florida through its franchise relationship with a local Ferrari dealer to be subject to personal jurisdiction.
Chinetti was subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida under Sections 48.181(1) and (2) of the Florida Statutes, and service of process was proper. The franchise relationship between Chinetti and Orange Motors, combined with Chinetti's role as the authorized Ferrari distributor for the eastern United States, provided sufficient contacts with Florida.
[1] A foreign corporation is amenable to service of process in Florida if it is engaged in business in the state.
[2] A franchise agreement between a foreign distributor and a Florida dealer, along with actions taken pursuant to that agreement, can establish sufficient contacts for juris…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Having reviewed the franchise agreement executed by the parties herein, and having considered the deposition of the president of Orange Motors setting forth the actions of the parties, both prior to and subsequent to execution of the franchise agreement, we find there was a sufficient showing to support the ruling, inherent in the order, that the appellant was amenable to service of process under the aforementioned statutes.”
The court's basis for affirming jurisdiction, emphasizing the franchise relationship as the key contact establishing jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Sadkin purchased a Ferrari automobile from Orange Motors of Miami for $16,150, alleging the vehicle had material mechanical defects that could no…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Warranty Of Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Chinetti Garthwaite Imports, Inc. (Chinetti), filed this interlocutory appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss.
In this action, the appellee Mark Sadkin sued Ferrari, alleged to be an Italian corporation, Orange Motors of Miami, Inc. (Orange Motors), and Chinetti. Sadkin sought damages for breach of warranty of fitness and merchantability of a Ferrari automobile which he had purchased from Orange Motors for a price of $16,150.00, and which it was alleged had material mechanic defects which the seller had been unable to eliminate and which could not be eliminated. Ferrari was the manufacturer. Chi-netti was the authorized Ferrari distributor for the eastern part of the United States. Orange Motors, of Dade County, was a Ferrari dealer, authorized and acting under a franchise agreement granted by Chinetti.
Chinetti is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal office and place of business in Pennsylvania. Substituted service was made on Chinetti in the manner prescribed in Section 48.081, Florida Statutes (1975), on the basis of it being a foreign corporation engaged in business in Florida. See Sections 48.181, 48.193 and 48.194, Florida Statutes (1975).
Chinetti moved to dismiss, stating as grounds that Chinetti had insufficient contacts in Florida to subject it to jurisdiction, and that there was insufficient service of process. After considering evidence submitted by the parties relevant to the jurisdiction question, the court entered the order appealed from which, without statement of facts or findings, ordered that Chinetti’s motion to dismiss be denied, and setting the time for answer by said defendant.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss, on the ground that it was not subject to service under Section 48.181(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1975). Having reviewed the franchise agreement executed by the parties herein, and having considered the deposition of the president of Orange Motors setting forth the actions of the parties, both prior to and subsequent to execution of the franchise agreement, we find there was a sufficient showing to support the ruling, inherent in the order, that the appellant was amenable to service of process under the aforementioned statutes.
Affirmed. '